Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What it says on the can, what would your perfect version of 40k be?

Ideally? A war game, one of the things I was looking forward to was gigantic battles between players, but really I've done nothing but skirmishes so not exactly happy about that.

A game where there is minimal confusion on rule interaction, and all armies were balanced internally.

Are you asking about the rules, setting, or just anything?

Armies that are balanced and Rules that are fair.
That's my ideal 40k.

Armies that are internally and externally balanced with several unique ways to play each with some capability to opt for something like chapter tactics (but balanced), rules that are fair assault and shooting equal, no more I go you go, and a few edits to fluff such as removing Draigo from OTT to a bit more reasonable (no warp running shenanigans and no more carving a name on a Daemon Primarch). All armies updated to plastic and resin. I guess another one is more reasonable prices and supplements worth their salt.

Finally, decided whether it wants to be a skirmish or large army. Most optimally keeping current as skirmish and bringing a smaller sized model force for big battles.

A 1/72 scale system with deep and balanced rules, played with a mix of plastic and proper resin miniatures.

And Draigo as a Daemon prince of Slaanesh.

Pretty much the same game but balanced like StarCraft (any one).

With the caveat of keeping the arguing of how this balanced StarCraft game works to a minimum.

As it is right now with the top 3-5% of rules and balance issues addressed via FAQ. IMO 7th was a step in the right direction.

Now, I love starcraft, and play it everyday.

I wouldn't say it's completely balanced, I think zerg comes out worse (though they are my race) mostly because they aren't good late game.

anyway, I shouldn't be just discussing starcraft tactics.

My ideal starcraft is one where BA is OP and no one can beat them. Just kidding. Yeah, just balanced races with BA or Orks having a fair chance of kicking tau's butt.

 Talizvar wrote:
Pretty much the same game but balanced like StarCraft (any one).

What are you talking about protss are op

Top priorites would be
lower prices in general so i wouldn't mind all the DLC which i kinda like
Proper balance (internal and external)
No rules conflict. i dont care if you read something some other way. it gets old quick when people try to bend words around to gain an advantage.

I can deal with random tables and stuff. i really like the current psychic phase as previous edition you where getting off powers like candy (though id prefer bonuses too higher lv psykers or something.

Rules wise:

5th, with 6E rules for Challenges, Fliers, and Rapid Fire weapons. Skyfire doesn't prevent you from firing at full BS at ground targets (stupid rule in the first place).

Take 7th and throw the entire thing in the dumpster. It's all garbage.

Price wise:

Obviously the lower the better, so it's not really an appropriate question. Our best interests involve minimal prices, while GW's best interests are served by maximizing what they can get, per model, assuming that they sell the same volume.

Release wise:

SLOW DOWN. Stop writing books for the sake of writing books. If you want me to pay $50 for a book, then play test the rules. None of the releases in the past two years have been worth paying for IMO.

My ideal 40k all the douches and whiners would see how great some other game is. They would then sell their crap and vanish into the night never to be seen or heard from again.
Then the rest of us with positive outlooks could enjoy 40k forums without all the tragedy and tears that have become all so prevalent.

 lobbywatson wrote:
My ideal 40k all the douches and whiners would see how great some other game is. They would then sell their crap and vanish into the night never to be seen or heard from again.
Then the rest of us with positive outlooks could enjoy 40k forums without all the tragedy and tears that have become all so prevalent.

Haha agreed mate. They are just sour over a wasted investment and want to make sure all of us waste ours with them. Or something.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Rules wise:

5th, with 6E rules for Challenges, Fliers, and Rapid Fire weapons. Skyfire doesn't prevent you from firing at full BS at ground targets (stupid rule in the first place).

Take 7th and throw the entire thing in the dumpster. It's all garbage.

Price wise:

Obviously the lower the better, so it's not really an appropriate question. Our best interests involve minimal prices, while GW's best interests are served by maximizing what they can get, per model, assuming that they sell the same volume.

Release wise:

SLOW DOWN. Stop writing books for the sake of writing books. If you want me to pay $50 for a book, then play test the rules. None of the releases in the past two years have been worth paying for IMO.

This, as well as turbo-boosting bikes may take the armor save as a cover save (per 5th) but against weapons that negate cover saves (such as flamers and markerlights (hate markerlights)) you may attempt a 5+ inv save due to moving so fast the flames don't make contact long enough to do much real harm or moving faster than a soldier with a designator can keep up with.

Also:

troops who use sniper weapons are no longer a troop selection, but become an elite selection and gain +1 to ballistic skill but on their opponent's following turn they loose any cover save they may have had and instead are required to use their armor save against shooting attacks.


No more hardcover $50 codecii, and an affordable and convenient sized main rulebook.

One with a Rak'gol army and codex.

A mostly internally balanced game with reasonably priced and proportioned models that (mostly) accurately reflect the fluff.

More balanced game with GW-supported competitive play with a few clearly defined formats.

More communication from GW.

More errata and faqs, including errata that attempts to further balance already-printed units by fixing point costs or other corrective measures.

Some storyline progression.

Fire the guy who thinks assaulting from reserve is unfair, but wiping out units with shooting out of reserve is perfectly fine.

My ideal version of 40k is based around 2nd-3rd edition in terms of fluff and setting. And the scale.

As for rules myself and some friends knocked up some house rules using the Warmachine rules which we enjoy more but allows us to use our 40k stuff.

Mechanics based on the d10, not the d6.
Rules with an internally consistent style and language, with competent editing and proof-reading. Rules should be clear and concise.
Armies with proper balance and playtesting.
None of this "oh, yeah, we wrote it like that and we know it's broken, but just don't play that way, 'k?" BS that is currently rife in the game.

 lobbywatson wrote:
My ideal 40k all the douches and whiners would see how great some other game is. They would then sell their crap and vanish into the night never to be seen or heard from again.
Then the rest of us with positive outlooks could enjoy 40k forums without all the tragedy and tears that have become all so prevalent.

There is an ignore feature you can use to silent the haters. Here let me demonstrate..........

One where I'm pleased enough with a paint job on an average sized model with just 15 minutes total work so I can finally field an army and start learning the rules by use rather than reading!

(Might help if I spent less time on the various 40k forums and more time at the craft table, huh?)

Easy.

Basically everything here but with 40k fluff and 40k minis with either the appropriate game scale for the current pricing (meaning skirmish) or reducing the current $/model cost to make it appropriate as a battle game.

 Psienesis wrote:
Mechanics based on the d10, not the d6.
Rules with an internally consistent style and language, with competent editing and proof-reading. Rules should be clear and concise.
Armies with proper balance and playtesting.
None of this "oh, yeah, we wrote it like that and we know it's broken, but just don't play that way, 'k?" BS that is currently rife in the game.

Basically this. It will not have to match the fluff- it is not compatible with the current hobby.

Mine would be internal/external balance. For all units for all armies to be efficiently costed so no one unit was a "must have". Unique and fun armies. Retraction of the retcon on the Iron Hands. For the Iron hands to have a few Unique characters allowing fun things with the armies. I want the prices for the freaking models to go down and for finecrap to bite the dust and never come back (hate putting together Thunder Fire Canons).

Warmachine/Hordes, but with Tyranids in it.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Warmachine/Hordes, but with Tyranids in it.

You mean with SPD 7 Hormugants with Leap? Lictors with Prowl and Prey? Tervigons with the Spawning Vessel rule? Genestealers with critical grievous wounds? Synapse creatures that with Inspiration: Fearless? Tyranid warriors as heavy infantry with Acid Bath for venon cannons or poison boneswords?

With over 800 model abilities that conversion is really not that hard.

A d10 would've provided appropriate disparity between great stuff and poor stuff...while keeping the speed dice

I'd like Warhammer 40,000 to become a cinematic skirmish game and Epic 40,000 to return a tactical war game.